Probably the most uncomfortably honest person I’ve come across on the interwebs. Also believes some really crazy shit. His analysis of Morris Dees’ divorce was top kek though.

Finally, somebody actually gets it. 95% of the stuff you hear about me is flat out wrong and the vast majority of that is simply lies and untruths. People just don’t get me at all. All they do is mischaracterize me. I know my own beliefs and values. I can obviously figure out if I am being mischaracterized or not.

This is one of the most perfect analyses of what I am doing here on the Net that I have ever read. Of course it comes from pol, the Alt Right/Nazi/White nationalist/whatever board.

I’m not a Nazi (I actually hate them) but Nazis, White nationalists, and Alt Right people are some of the few people who have managed to figure me out. Everyone else just doesn’t get it. They read the Book of Me but they didn’t understand it.

I am not sure what this means, except that maybe I really am Alt Left. It’s disturbing that only Alt Right people get me, but maybe that makes sense I am really Alt Left after all, with the original Alt Left being an Alt Right split. The original Alt Left had Alt Right roots (in fact it was an open Alt Right split), and the presence of certain aspects of the Alt Right are present in much of the true Alt Left to this day.

It’s a complicated theory, but Rabbit has written some excellent analyses along these lines. Read him if you don’t get it. Let’s put it this way. One great thing about the Alt Right was this Realism Uber Alles attitude – race realism, gender realism, sexual orientation realism, gender identity realism. It’s a scientific attitude towards the bitter facts of life that rejects the SJW feel good mythology of Soma and happy pills. The SJW’s hearts are in the right place in a sense – they want everyone to be nice and quit picking on everyone else – but it’s anti-reality and they’ve turned into some weird Church Lady Commissars. They aren’t even fun anymore. SJW’s are as fun as a stern nun with a ruler in her hand.

Sometime I think Brandon Adamson is one the few Alt Left people who has figured me out. We are different, but in a way, Brandon is my child. The deepest roots of Brandon’s Alt Left are found in his reading of my Liberal Race Realism, my previous political project, which set Brandon slowly down the road to the Alt Left. LRR more or less turned into the Alt Left over years.

Most of the Alt Left is still far too rightwing for my and hopefully Brandon’s sensibilities.

It’s interesting though that the very earliest Alt Leftists (I will include Ryan England here also) are the ones who truly understood and stayed faithful to the complicated ethos of the early visions of the Alt Left.

In particular, the early Alt Left was very left on economics. I am some sort of weird liberal-to-Commie type and Brandon likes to call himself a “space Communist.” Ryan was originally know as Agent Commie, and his thinking has Marxist roots.

Brandon is getting some new followers that seem to be onto his Left of the Alt Right project – some sort of weird leftwing White nationalism which I do not support – but I wish him well. I’d be quite happy if more of these Alt Right guys went socialist. I don’t care if they vote of us or not. Why should I care? A sane politics grabs every vote it can.

How many people do Nazis kill, anyway? A few here and there?

And the neoliberalism of the corporate Democrats has killed tens of millions.

And the insane neoconservative wars of the Cold War Democrats has killed close to 2 million since 2003 alone.

What are we talking about here? At least 22 million deaths?

How many have these Alt Right Nazis killed in the last 30 years? It sure ain’t 22 million.

A socialist Nazi is 20 times better than a corporate Democrat, and I hate Nazis.

You pick your poison in life. Life is basically toxic, and you simply choose the poisons that harm you the least. And then you die.

Beauregard writes: Not all WN’s are NS. There is sort of a natural anti-government slant with them as they believe it unjustly compels Whites to support non-Whites through taxes or other.

In the US, White nationalists are all Libertarians and Republican type conservatives, no exceptions at all. Well, very few are not Libertarians and almost none of them oppose laissez faire economics and neoliberalism. At least of the typical US variety you see on the main US White nationalist sites. White nationalism in the US is a Libertarian movement – full stop, almost no exceptions.

The only exceptions would be a few of these Left of the Alt Right types coalescing around Rabbit and his site. Those are sort of leftwing White nationalists. A lot of people say that that makes no sense, but really it does. Ethnic nationalism doesn’t have to be rightwing. Rabbit is a liberal/Left type on almost every single issue other than race. How dare we call him a rightwinger.

In Europe, Libertarian White nationalists basically do not exist. There is literally no such thing. All Nazi and White nationalist types in Europe are socialists – usually national socialists. There are really no Libertarians period in Europe – the closest is the Tories and UKIP in the UK, but the UK has finally gotten sick and tired of Thatcherite neoliberalism, which was continued by the execrable Tony Blair.

Inequality has exploded and the UK is turning into a smaller version of the US. Why any sane nation on Earth would want to model itself on the United States is beyond me, but the general atmosphere in the UK now is US-type Republican Party politics for the Tories and disgusting Hillary/DNC corporate liberals in the Labor Party promoted by the Guardian and other fake left outfits. There has been a huge fight in the Labor Party over its soul as corporate branch of party seemed to have the power and the money, but they were defeated by a Sanders-style insurgency with Corbyn, who is now being predictably red-baited.

So racist Libertarianism is a peculiar American disorder, but it may have analogues in the ultra-capitalist reactionary politics of the Philippines and Latin America, in which the White and Chinese elites preside over a de facto Libertarian stripped state, the motivation for which being anti-Malay racism on the party of the Chinese and anti-mestizo, Indian, mulatto and Black racism on the part of the Latin American White elites. That’s probably as close of an analogue to US Libertarian racism (the Republican Party is a de facto ultra-racist party, as the reason for the Libertarianism, neoliberalism and government stripping is rooted in White racism seeing no use for government and government as a drain on White taxpayers to fund mestizo and Black good for nothing layabout criminals.)

Stormfront has always had a large socialist (national socialist) section possibly because all of the European forums are made up more or less completely of socialists. Tom Metzger, as nasty as he is, was at least for the workingman. This Heimbasch with his Traditionalist Workers Party seems to be onto a pro-worker project also. At this point, I’d rather support a pro-worker Nazi that a Goddamned corporate Democrat with neoliberal economics, neoconservative foreign policy and the Cultural Left on social issues. Neoliberals kill far more people every year than Nazis anyway. How many people do Nazis actually kill in a year? A handful? How many do neoliberals kill? Millions.

In the US-supported coup against the Venezuelan government in 2002, the Opposition managed to station some snipers on a bridge who shot their own people and Chavistas, US/fascist style.

US-supported thugs did the exact same thing in Syria and Ukraine – snipers on rooftops or in buildings fired on both police and demonstrators and then blamed it on the government in both cases. To this day the corporate media in the West continues to insist that Chavistas on the bridge fired on Opposition people (and their own supporters?), Syrian government police on rooftops fired on demonstrators below (and their own police?), and the Berkut Ukrainian police fired on demonstrators below (and their own police officers?).

All of these are lies, and all of these were false flag attacks to blame the opposition for a human rights outrage. All three were planned and supported by the US.

In the case of Syria, the snipers were Saudis and they were smuggled across the border.

In the case of Ukraine, the snipers were NATO forces carrying musical instrument cases all firing from one building. They were later allowed to leave without opposition by the new government. I have seen footage of these “musicians” (snipers) leaving the building and heading to planes back to where they came from. In Ukraine, the snipers were sent by NATO and came from Lithuania, Poland, and Georgia. NATO trained these snipers in Poland a couple of months before.

Some of the Georgian snipers are now on record saying that they were part of this false flag attack. They say they were tricked into firing on the two groups of people and now they feel betrayed. Of course, not one single media outlet in the West has reported on these Georgians testifying that they were the NATO snipers who fired on the people below. The killings were then used to justify a coup in the Ukraine in which a pro-Russian government was replaced by a Nazi Russophobic Ukrainian nationalist regime. The US cooked up these whole plot a few months before. A woman named Victoria Nuland was the go-to person for this plot. She started working on the plot several months before.

In the case of Syria, the massacre at the demonstration was blamed on the Syrian government and was used to justify a civil war against the Syrian government. To this day, all of the Western media bar none blames the attack on the demonstrations on Syrian police.

So there you can see three different false flag attacks that were planned by the US and its allies (especially NATO) using the same technique – snipers in a tall building or on a roof firing on both government supporters and security personnel and opposition demonstrators.

People say there is no such thing as false flags. Well there are three false flags right there, and two of them are in the last decade.

If you enjoy the hard work that goes into this website, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site. Donations are the only thing that keep the site operating.

Jason Y writes: Possibly the Democrats in the US need the US NAM’s for votes, but they don’t need NAM’s in other countries.

US foreign policy has always been far more reactionary than US domestic policy. This contrast is especially stark when looking at the Democratic Party.

The Cold War made this so much worse. The Republicans said any leader who liked labor unions or raised the minimum wage was a Soviet-supporting Communist who needed to be killed or removed via a coup. And many were killed and especially removed via coups.

At the same time, the Republicans spent most of the Cold War screaming at the Democrats for being Communists or at the very least Communist sympathizers or fellow travelers. The Democrats ran scared all through the Cold War, always terrified of being called “soft on Communism.” So they tried to out-Cold War the Republicans and bent to try to out-hate the USSR.

Hence, the Democrats went along with Jonathan Foster Dulles reactionary Containment Project he initiated in the late 1940’s. Foster Dulles was a very rich man who came from old East Coast money. He was also a very rightwing government official. US foreign policy followed Dulles dictum from the 1940’s on, so our foreign policy was molded on a template created by a reactionary from the ruling class.

When Reagan came in, he updated Containment with actual Rollback, and we got Contras, wars in Mozambique and Angola, etc. The Reaganites kept accusing the Democrats of being soft on Communism, and once again, the Democrats ran scared. The horrific Central American projects of the 1980’s, where the US government set up and helped run rightwing death squads that raged across the land, murdering tens of thousands of civilians, was mostly run by some of the most liberal men in Congress, especially the shameful super-liberal Alan Cranston of California and Chris Dodd, the very liberal Connecticut “Senator from Aetna.”

Keep in mind that US foreign policy was reactionary even before the Cold War.

FDR, one of our finest presidents, was a reactionary on foreign policy. He supported the murderous dictator Somoza in Nicaragua, and he made the famous comment, “Somoza may be a bastard, but he’s our bastard.”

Liberal President Woodrow Wilson was not only a reactionary and a proto-humanitarian bomber, but he was also a very racist man domestically. In modern terms, Wilson would be a flat out White Supremacist out of American Renaissance.

The liberal reformer Teddy Roosevelt continued the Monroe Doctrine that declared all of Latin America to be effectively colonies of the US. His famous statement, “Walk softly but carry a big stick,” referred to his reactionary bullying, aggression and immiseration towards our quasi-colonies in Latin America.

If you enjoy the hard work that goes into this website, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site. Donations are the only thing that keep the site operating.

There is a problem with American identity: its founding mythology, its Constitution which is supposed to be the result of an Enlightenment-Inspired humanistic democratic republican revolution against a colonial empire. This can be understandable in as much as most scholars tend not to know too much was the real Enlightenment movement was: a movement of the filthy rich of their times who wanted first and foremost to do away with the various particular and limited rights many rather modest or middle-rank people had inherited from the Christian Middle Ages on a caste-basis most of the times.

American-style slavery was the epitome of the ideals of Enlightenment as applied to political economy, and if you care to have a look, you will see that the bulk of the clientele of those ideologues were the slaving classes on both sides of the Atlantic. But the problem now is that the truth about 18th-century Enlightenment cannot be sold due to popular hope worldwide.

Another big identification problem stems from the very word “democracy”: in ancient Greek, it did not mean at all the modern ideal (not the reality) of a government held in check by the commoners’ right to depose tyrants and vote down laws felt as abusive, it never meant government of the people by the people for the people, it meant government by a single governing party (dêmos, from verb daiomai, I divide, I take apart, like the Latinate word party which is related to the very partire meaning taking apart) Eastern European style (minus any form of social ideal however mendacious) or by a closed-access class, and moreover it meant that this ruling party or class had or felt no responsibility towards greater good but cared for their group interests only as a gated community is managed.

It was not different from the modern concept of oligarchy. The ancient concept of oligarchy was rather government by a team so small that everybody knew who did what and who ordered what: as soon as the elite, while comprising no more than 1 or 2%, was just big enough for the power it exerted to be anonymous and without any real possibility of influence from any single individual within it, it was called dêmokratia, and especially when the real leaders preferred to keep their identity secret thanks to the anonymous crowd they manipulated at will, which was the case in Athens, whose symbol of the owl meant that very ideal of secrecy and shady dealings.

When such a ruling class or body felt responsibilities towards the greater good, the regime was no longer called a democracy but a timocracy (government according to honor fostered by personal contribution to the greater good): timocracy was a government of takers and givers, a democracy of takers only, and if you check on ancient Athenian mentality, it considered any form of productive work (poiesis), even the production of poems, a dishonor (another gross insult was demiurge, which meant nothing more than a productive artisan at the city’s disposal).

Greek had a word to denote the right of the commoners to vote down tyrants and bad laws, it was called laodicea (the common people judging), but the city that used this system existed in Phrygia only, in Asia Minor, not in Greece proper, who had too high an opinion of themselves as a superior kind over all humans to stoop down to such a regime. In the 18th century most scholars still knew more or less what real Athens was about in the Classical times, a government where the rich and well to do were told by no one they too had duties towards a higher political or moral authority. The partisans of “democracy” just wouldn’t admit to being compelled to practice the same religion as was needed to keep their inferiors in line.

That was the real meaning of “democracy” under Jefferson’s pen. The ideal sold thereafter to the European commoners was meant as a propaganda trick for useful idiots only, exactly like the worst aspects of totalitarian Marxism later on. That is the identity problem I would like to terminate as regards America.

In a certain sense, I want that country to turn officially fascist – that would be actually more in tune with the real Founding Fathers’ will. This country should no longer be declared to owe its existence to the Founding Fathers of the American Revolution, nor even to the Mayflower Pilgrims – neither describe its real essence in the ears of most.

The US should officially declare that it owes its existence as the first White predator political entity on the American continent to the Viking invader Eric the Red. All Americans should idealize the conquering Viking as their ideal ancestor, thanks to whose blood and example the Wild West could be conquered as a prelude to the imperialistic conquest of the whole world.

America did not appear on the map devising a perfect constitution for the human gender; it appeared as a reality of the soil of its continent as an enterprise to genocide all Indians and all other all-too-romantic bums of that kind to make room for slaving plantations furnished with Negroes and Irishmen.

The main difference with Nazi Germany is that Nazi Germany postulated that the Germanic race was the only worthwhile and successful predator in the world and could propagate only through physical breeding. On the other hand, America postulates that the Viking predator, apart from having ideal blood, has even more value as the most perfect example anybody in the world can follow as a model of self-transformation into a monster, though some races like the Viking-descendant Wasps and some Jews are statistically nearer that ideal type than others.

The US should officially declare itself to be the fatherland of all predators of the world, and of all religions having declared war against common humanity. Any delinquent in the world committing vicious acts of predation or betrayal against their community of origin (as the Vikings were for instance, and as the Jews were according the American Protestant ideal of what a Biblical Jew should be) should be considered a de facto American citizen.

LBJ used to say, in order to justify his policy of desegregation and the temporary establishment of his Grand Society, that the real reason for his move was for the elite to be able to roll back America to official racism and segregation. This was badly needed prelude to get the White Trash ready for a future in which they would be prepared to jettison all human rights and accept a dictatorship together with an Indian-style caste society in exchange for their only real dearest right, that of knowing that however hard they have it, Blacks will have it ten times as hard as servants of the lowest of their own servants, as quoth the Bible.

And I think that time has come. Ideally, the future official religion of such a country formed during or after a second Civil War to come as a revenge for the first should be some form of Hinduism, with the Jews being the Brahmins, the Vikings being the Kshatriyas, and the contemporary Indians being the Vaishyas.

If you enjoy the hard work that goes into this website, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site. Donations are the only thing that keep the site operating.

I am not going to discuss here the rightwing use of anti-immigration policy as a way of politicizing racism, nor as a means of splintering the working class and getting a lot of workers to vote for the parties of the ruling class by voting for rightwing anti-immigrant politicians. Both of those are well-known goals of anti-immigrant discourse.

Not that anti-immigrant discourse is all bad. There are times when immigration is out of control and things need to be brought under order. The use of foreign workers are temporary low wage scabs to increase profits, the abuse of the refugee program, large numbers of problematic immigrants coming to a country, immigrants straining government services, illegal immigrants, environmental degradation by mass immigration, changing the nation’s ethnic and cultural character via mass immigration of foreigners, all of these things are examples of some of the negative effects that can occur via unregulated or poorly regulated immigration.

What I wish to talk about here is something different: anti-immigration rhetoric as a rightwing diversion from rightwing projects, in this case to dismantle the state.

A wildly corrupt and outrageous rightwing parliamentary coup followed by a blatantly corrupt trial of the head of the former president resulted in a hard rightwing putschist state pursuing a radical reactionary project of dismantling all of the progressive reforms of the leftwing PT government under President Lula. Since then, public institutions have been systematically defunded even when they were already underfunded to start with in part because Brazil has never once taxed the rich in its entire existence as a nation. So public services are collapsing due to defunding in the same way that public entities collapsed under rightwing Sam Brownblack in Kansas and the NHS is presently collapsing in the UK due to a death by a thousand cuts via the Tory government.

Public frustration over the collapsing state is at a high level. At the same time, many new immigrants have been coming into Brazil due to the rightwing and US-created collapse of the economy there.

You need to understand about immigration in Latin America. It does not have the racist overtones of the debate here in the US about immigration. Also the income differences between the countries of Latin America are not vast. Latin American nations consider all Latin Americans to be part of a single ethnic mixed race people sharing a single Latin American basic culture. In many countries, the immigrants speak the same language as the residents. This makes even mass immigration much more of a “meh” issue in Latin America than it is here. All Latin Americans are brothers, ethnically, culturally and often linguistically, so why not let your brothers into your house when they desire shelter from a storm?

Hence, even White Argentina has been taking in large numbers of mestizo immigrants from Peru and Bolivia lately with a promise to soon legalize them all. Even heavily White Costa Rica has taken in 1-2 million mestizos from its neighbors who are either impoverished or devastated by street crime with an apparent promise to normalize most of them. Venezuela took in many Colombians fleeing war and poverty without batting an eye, and Colombia took in many rightwing Venezuelans fleeing Chavismo. Except in Mexico, immigrants are seldom deported in Latin America. The idea is to house, integrate and even legalize them as soon as possible.

Nevertheless, the line of Venezuelan immigrants has turned into a flood in some cities.

Brazil’s rightwing gangster state has made clever use of the problems of mass Venezuelan immigration by deviously blaming the collapsed public services (devastated and defunded by rightwing evisceration) on the masses of Venezuelan immigrants! This is apparently not true at all. The immigrants are not overwhelming public services and causing them to collapse. Instead the public services are collapsing via gutting by the rightwing state.

But the government has the people whipped into a wild nativist frenzy over this. This is in spite of the fact that Brazilians and Venezuelans are probably little different ethnically – both being some mixture of Black, White, and Indian. The result has been daily attacks on Venezuelan immigrants in some cities and most recently a spate of high profile arson attacks on buildings housing Venezuelan immigrants.

This could be called attacks on immigrants as a diversion from anti-people rightwing projects. It’s a way of getting people to look the other way and scapegoat innocent people while the state is dismantled by the rich.

If you enjoy the hard work that goes into this website, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site. Donations are the only thing that keep the site operating.

The President of Honduras was recently removed by a coup sponsored by “liberal Democrat” Hillary Clinton. His crime? He raised the minimum wage. After the coup, the US and the Honduran government set up death squads that rampaged through the country murdering leftwingers. They should have named these killers Hillary’s Gang because that’s what they were. The recent election in Honduras was a completely fraudulent stolen election, obvious to anyone with open eyes. Trump promptly declared it free and fair and pledged support to the new government. Meanwhile, the reincarnated rightwing death squads of Central America continue to rage across the land and the murders of leftwingers continue unabated.

You would not believe how many governments the US has staged coups because they dared to raise the minimum wage.

How many Americans know this? Name one US media outlet anywhere at any time that has reported this clear fact. There is not one. Conclusion: the US has a completely controlled media run by the corporate-wealthy-state apparatus called the Deep State, otherwise known as The Foreign Policy Establishment of the United States.

If you enjoy the hard work that goes into this website, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site. Donations are the only thing that keep the site operating.

Answered on Quora. I got a comment on this article from a woman that I think is very interesting. First she said, when I think of America as a person, I feel very uncomfortable. And well you should! Narcissists and sociopaths make a lot of people shiver. Then she tried to answer the question of how in heck did this country end up this way. She traces Radical Individualism, the true and only religion that America has ever had, to the type of immigrants who came to our shores. She may be onto something.

It might sound strange but whenever I picture the US as a person, I am not comfortable.

Where did this culture start? It seems probable that most colonists had this particular mindset. They were economically driven to obtain a better position for themselves, leaving behind nearly everything. Not everyone is cut out to do so, emotionally. So the US were more or less filled with strong willed entrepreneurs, looking out for number one. Religion is for Sundays (Saturdays); your own thrive and survival for the rest of the week. And for the newly arrived: adapt or die trying.

If you are conservative to reactionary, it’s a great place to live, as the US is clearly one of the most rightwing places on Earth and has been for a long time. Do you believe in radical individualism or “let em die” Libertarianism. America is the home for such things. America is one of the most callous countries on Earth and its foreign policy has always been vicious and wicked. It believes that there one set of rules for it and another set for its enemies.

It commits Nazi-like wars of aggression against its enemies all the time. America is the worst bully on the planet and has been for a very long time. America has always been for the rich and the corporations and has always treated its workers, poor, low income, and minorities like complete garbage. It hasn’t even treated its middle classes very well, but it took them forever to figure it out.

The hatred of working people and unions in the US is off the charts. This one of the only countries on Earth that actually hates labor unions. America is one of the only countries on Earth that hates government. Any time the government tries to help the people, Americans react in rage and revolt. This is one of the only countries on Earth where people hate paying taxes because that means that they have to share with other Americans. Americans are the most aggressively selfish people on Earth.

This is one of the only countries on Earth that actually hates public education (because it helps the people), and it has been rolling it back and privatizing it ever since. Botswana is the only country besides the US that does not have a government health system. This is because Americans are so callous that they don’t care if other Americans get sick or die. The message is that if you are not rich, you don’t deserve healthcare and you need to die.

American foreign policy has only helped the top 20% of the people in the countries it engages. Anytime any country tries to help its workers or its ordinary people in any way, for example trying to help the 80% bottom instead of the 20% top, it gets attacked in one way or another by the US.

A prime example is the minimum wage. Many nations in Latin America have been attacked by the US for simply daring to wage the minimum wage! Aristide in Haiti raised the minimum wage and built more schools in eight years than in the previous 200. For these crimes, death squads were sent against its people, killing thousands of them, and kidnapping Aristide at gunpoint.

The President of Honduras raised the minimum wage. For this, he was ousted by a US coup, imprisoned in a foreign embassy and threatened with death, a new coup government was put in by the US, and the US set up death squads that have now murdered over 1,000 people.

Any time a country tries to do anything nationalist to keep from being a colony of the US and its allies, the US attacks it. The US wants to keep most of the Earth in bondage to the US, their resources plundered, their people immiserated, so all of the wealth in the land goes to the US. America is the new Roman Empire and most of the world is made up of our vassals.

The purpose of the US military is to threaten any nation that tries to help itself or its people with annihilation. That’s what you are signing up for when you join the military. Thing is that Americans love all of this. They cheer for it, for this is the essence of US patriotism or jingoism. Even US liberals support almost everything that I wrote above. I am always shocked when I speak to US liberal Democrats by how much they have bought into the patriotic reactionary swill.

The basis for all of this is something called radical individualism. US foreign policy is based on something called US imperialism that says that the US is dictator the world and most of the countries in it are slaves and colonies of the US. The American people love radical individualism and US imperialism. Even many liberal Democrats do. Almost all liberal Democrats support US imperialism to the hilt.

All of this is maintained by a completely controlled media controlled by very rich people and huge corporations. This media is viciously anti-people and only supports the rich and the corporations – the only two groups the US has ever represented and fought for.

We have never had a single day of democracy in this country. We started to finally head that way in the 1970’s and 1980’s, and the rich and the corporations founded think tanks and wrote many papers on how to shut down radical democracy in the US. The results of this are, among other things, mass voter disenfranchisement and Jim Crow style voting restrictions designed to keep Black people from voting.

Since 2000, the wealthy and corporate elite discovered voting machines and started stealing elections this way. They have been doing it ever since and it has only gotten worse with time. In 2000, the Supreme Court legalized an actual theft of an election. In 2016, many states went to court to stop recounts in states that were obviously stolen by Republicans with voting machines. Courts in all of these states ruled that recounting the stolen elections was illegal.

Almost every state in the US is radically gerrymandered so that democracy is shattered. For instance, a Democrat could win the popular vote and still lose 86% of the seats to Republicans. This is the case in Alabama, Wisconsin, Virginia, and many other places. The Republicans only need two more states, and then the rich and the corporations will write a constitutional convention to rewrite the constitution to take out everything democratic in it to perpetuate continuous rule by reactionary rich people and corporations. At that time, democracy will have surely died.

With the election of Donald Trump, we see an actual American fascism taking shape. Of course this fascism has always lurked in the background, and in fact I would say we have always been a fascist country or at least a radical rightwing authoritarian country in many ways. But this is the most overt fascism we have seen in the US in a very long time.
The hatred for democracy runs deep in the bones of Americans and right now, maybe 1/3 of the population is overtly fascist. I would say that America has always been a great country for rightwingers, as it has been a far rightwing country for most of its history. The jingoists, patriots, and flag wavers are almost all rightwingers and always have been. This is their paradise and it always has been.

That is why rightwingers, reactionaries, and fascists have been flooding to the US for many years now. This is considered to be the Rightwing Dreamland of the rich and corporate classes the world over. In fact, our immigration policy was deliberately set up for many years to favor rightwingers and reactionaries and to keep leftwing immigrants out. This only made the country more and more rightwing. Incredibly, the Democratic Party supported this favoring of rightwing immigrants and opposing of leftwing immigrants.

The Democratic Party and Democratic Presidents have been part of the whole process above for most our history. They just push it forward less hard and sometimes they tinker around the edges to do something for the people. We had a large populist uprising from 1910–1920 in the US and then again in the Great Depression. For the first time in its history, the US government actually worked for the people and did many things to benefit the common man instead of just taking money from the bottom 80% and giving it to the top 20% or even 1%, which has been the American Way from Day One.

I would say that if you are a conservative or even a “liberal” who thinks all of the above is the greatest thing since sliced bread, you are correct. America is your paradise. A lot of people love this conservative – reactionary or even now fascist or Libertarian land. It’s their oyster. It’s the apple of their eye. I don’t blame them for feeling that way.

But it has always puzzled me how liberal or leftwing Americans could love this wildly reactionary country. I believe they have been brainwashed by patriotism and bullied into going along with the project. I have seen many liberals and even out and out Leftists shouting jingoistic tripe, screaming that America is the best country on Earth (83% of Americans believe this silliness), and ordering anyone who disagrees to leave the country. The enforced jingoism runs deep.

But really what is there to like here for a liberal to progressive person? Honestly not even one single thing. How could the most rightwing country on Earth be some leftwing paradise? It makes no sense.

So there you have it. America is great for rightwingers. This is their ultimate dream. For liberals and especially for progressive people, it has always been a dystopian Hell, one of Dante’s nine circles.

If you enjoy the hard work that goes into this website, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site. Donations are the only thing that keep the site operating.

Photo from March 1941. Identify the following leading Nazis in this photo (these are the only ones I can identify: Rudolf Hess, Reinhard Heydrich, Heinrich Himmler, and Konrad Meyer. One of these men is giving a talk on Generalplan Ost, and the other three men are listening.

Himmler and Hess are well- known, but Heydrich is much less known though he was very important, and Meyer is nearly unheard of.

Hess committed suicide in jail in Germany after being imprisoned for 32 years, Himmler committed suicide just after the end of the war while in British custody, Heydrich was assassinated in a famous but little known ambush in Czechoslovakia in 1942, and Meyer served only three years in prison, was released in 1948, and went back to his former life as a Professor of Agriculture at a university.

The Catholic Church hierarchy nearly everywhere has been reactionary. The Catholic Church had been in with the ruling classes in Europe forever. This was one of the main reasons why the Bible was never translated into the vernacular and why masses were always held in Latin. The people could neither read not speak Latin, hence there was a huge disconnect between the Church hierarchy and the people.

This is similar to many other religions, especially eclectic religions of the Middle East such as Yezidism, Alawism and Druze. In all of these religions, the secrets of the religion are usually held in secret by a priestly caste of mostly men, though the Druze actually have female priests. For a long time, the secret book of the Yezidis was thought to not even exist except perhaps only in oral form – this is how secret it was. This ended when an actual copy fell into Western hands around 1900.

In all of these religions, the “real true” religion is in the hands of the priestly caste and they make sure not to tell any outsiders what the religion is about. Hence it has been very hard to get good data on any of these religions. The people are fed some watered down version of the religion that doesn’t mean much of anything and if you ask the average Alwai, Druze or Yezidi what their religion is about, you will only get some diluted harmless synopsis acceptable for outside ears. Usually what the people say the religion believes and what it really believes are two different things altogether.

The Catholic Church was in with the rich and in Europe especially in the Middle Ages it was very wealthy. It was this extreme wealth that enabled the Church to build those huge architectural masterpieces we see in the form of Medieval churches across the north of Europe, especially in France and England. They sold the peasants pie in the sky when you die like religions always do. It was this anti-people, pro-rich philosophy that made Marx so hostile to religion. He was not so much against it because he was a materialist and he thought it was superstition; he was also against it because he thought it was reactionary.

The hierarchy of the Church remained reactionary all through the 20th Century. Archbishop Oscar Romero of El Salvador and the four Catholic priests assassinated in 1989 at the start of the great guerrilla offensive (a crime that was plotted in the US ambassador’s office of the US Embassy two days before) were the exceptions to this rule. The Church hierarchy in Venezuela and Nicaragua remain rightwing and hostile to the Sandinistas and Chavistas to this very day. Same with the church hierarchy in Spain to the best of my knowledge.